Miranda vs Arizona

First, Miranda v. Arizona all started on March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been kidnapped, taken to a part of desert land in Arizona, and was raped. She was given a polygraph test, but the results were inadequate. While tracking the license plate number, they came upon a vehicle, similar to that of the women’s attacker, linking them to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who was booked for being a peeping tom. When they put a police line-up for the women to pick out Ernesto, she couldn’t identify, but he was still questioned by police. Police began to interrogate Mr. Miranda and never read him his rights, before interrogation. The interrogation lasted two- hours, in which Miranda supposedly admitted to committing the crimes, and the police had an audio recording of the entire interview. Ernesto had never finished ninth grade and had a history of mental uncertainty.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Arizona was of course the Miranda Rights that a peace officer is supposed to tell you when they say they arrested the following “1)You have the right to remain silent. 2)Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 3)You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.” It is basically is what it states that the officer tells you your rights so you can’t say you didn't know your rights and do the whole thing Miranda did.Morrow, Stephanie. "Know Your Rights: What Are Miranda Rights?"Legalzoom.com. N.p., May 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. If I was on the Supreme Court and Miranda came, saying he did not know his rights, so his confession of him rapping and kidnapping a woman is not valid ,i would get down from my chair going up to his face and say you must be one dumb person if you think ima let you get away with this sick and vile crime you have committed.However, if i were to do it the legal way I would do everything in my power to help him get a fair trial where he knows his rights perfectly clear and do my best to get him life in prison without the chance of parole. I would do that because he knew what he was doing was breaking the law and just plain wrong, so i don’t see why he would get off a crime like that because he didn't know his

In the United States, everyone counts on that justice and liberty is something that we can all have regardless if you are a criminal or not. However, nobody pays attention when they are in school while they are learning about their rights. Then how is someone going to know what they have the right to do while being in an arrested? Miranda v. Arizona was an important case in the U.S. history for a reason. Miranda v. Arizona does guarantee justice and maintains the liberty of everyone.

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

Miranda v. arizona is a watershed moment in law enforcement because it is a right to silence warning given by police in the united states, to criminal suspect in police custody before they are statement against them in criminal proceeding. My other evidence is that it is important to say the miranda right to a criminals because if you don't say the rights to them while he or she is getting arrested than there will be no charges for the man or women and likely get released from jail and he or she can go free like nothing happen so that is why it is important for an officer to say the miranda rights. My other piece of evidence is that in an article i read said that in 1966 the supreme court decide the historic case of miranda v. arizona

After refusing to sign the paper, and being interrogated, he finally confessed. Miranda's lawyers claimed that Miranda was not informed on any of his rights. Rights he should have been aware of included his right to keep quiet and his right to an attorney. He was charged with rape and kidnapping, but wanted to go to a higher court. This is when he went to the Supreme Court. An investigation would take place to see if the arresting officer followed the right rules. The one who led court was Chief Justice Warren. In court, there was a 5-4 decision. Ernesto would no longer be convicted of his crime because his rights were not made aware to him. The judge stated that a person's rights must be said to them when they are arrested. Miranda should have been told of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. His confession was no longer valid, and he would get a new trial. Different evidence though, did confirm that he was the one responsible for the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Even though he'd need to spend time in jail, his case changed both the world, and the procedures of police

The Miranda vs. Arizona all started when Ernesto Miranda was accused for kidnapping and raping a woman. The Miranda right came to be when law enforcement failed to read Ernesto his right. This case was so big that the whole state of Arizona was involved. I believe that Miranda vs. Arizona does ensure justice and preserve liberty.

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

The United States of America prides itself on being a nation in which the people’s rights are put first and foremost. We can speak how we like and do almost anything we want, which are luxuries that people in many other countries are not given. Our Miranda Rights are an example of a guarantee that the American people are given that, at first, was not widespread throughout the world. It was Miranda vs. Arizona that established this vital warning that would enforce the constitutional rights of not only criminals, but of all citizens, and ensure that no American would be incriminated against without knowing their rights.

Since June 13, 1966, any suspect that has been arrested need to be informed with his or her rights. Ernesto Miranda who was intimidated by the police for being accused of kidnap and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The case however has evidence; it was convicted with no questions towards the suspect Ernesto. Miranda served 11 years in prison before his case was retired. Another case showed that suspects should have their rights during a police questioning. Even though whatever a suspect says while being interrogated, it will be used against them.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.